While I doubt feasability as well, the Hypervisor technology integrated into the qoriq processors offer a Base for a quite elegant solution. A lot of things for virtualization is done in Silicon here, could ease things up quite significantly.

[ Editiert durch Zylesea 06.01.2017 - 10:07 ]

> run MorphOS on one of the X5000's CPU cores, while simultaneously running
> AmigaOS4.1FE in a virtual machine, on the other X5000 CPU core, possibly
> using separate video cards and monitors, and able to share a portion of memory,
> for clipboard sharing, but set aside separate memory for the rest of each system,
> to avoid problems of one OS over writing memory being used by the other OS.

Why devise a VM when the e5500 core has this capability built in? See:

http://www.nxp.com/files/32bit/doc/white_paper/EMBEDDED_HYPERVISOR.pdf (refers to the e500mc core but is valid for e5500 and e6500 as well)
http://www.linux-kvm.org/page/E500_virtual_CPU_specification (also for e5500 and e6500)
http://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?forum=16&topic_id=10057&start=31
http://www.google.com/search?q=site:nxp.com+%22embedded+hypervisor%22

> perhaps it could also be extended to allow running Linux, or MacOSX in virtual machines
> on the 2nd core, instead of AmigaOS4.1FE.

Using the e5500's embedded hypervisor (Topaz), running Linux in parallel would be no problem. MacOSX wouldn't be possible, though, as it's not compatible with the e5500 core on supervisor level (and lacks drivers for the QorIQ P5's on-chip controllers).

> I'm guessing that AmigaOS4.1FE would be easier to get running on a virtual machine
> [...], instead of the other way around, starting the X5000 with AmigaOS4.1FE and then
> running a virtual machine to startup MorphOS3.10

Why do you think this would be easier than the other way round?

Quote:

Because, as I stated in the original post with this question, it would most likely be done by programmers who are not part of the MorphOS Dev. Team, and Hyperion Entertainment, and MorphOS is currently tied to hardware, while AmigaOS4.1FE is not tied to a specific machine, though it is tied to a specific model of machines. I guess I should have clarified that statement by saying the full versions of both, and not the time limited version of MorphOS.

[ Edited by amigadave 05.01.2017 - 16:08 ]

The only thing that is more tied to the HW in that case would be the code reading the MAC address from the onboard NIC.

It's like saying being 1st in a marathon is harder cos you have to run through that ribbon at the finish.

>>> I'm guessing that AmigaOS4.1FE would be easier to get running on a virtual machine
>>> [...], instead of the other way around, starting the X5000 with AmigaOS4.1FE and then
>>> running a virtual machine to startup MorphOS3.10

>> Why do you think this would be easier than the other way round?

> Because [...] MorphOS is currently tied to hardware

In a VM, where also the NIC is virtualized, a MAC address has to be conceived anyway. Why not simply use the MAC address the particular MorphOS keyfile is tied to?

Quote:
Moreover the PCIe-G5s are a much less pain in the ass Linux-wise - no AGP-Card problems any longer... Also max. 16GiB DDR2 instead of 8GiB DDR. And the thing I liked best about my G5 11,2 was that to my surprise it was much more quiet than my G5 7,3 even without changing the thermal paste!

Quote:

I did not know that in a virtual machine that the NIC MAC address was also "conceived anyway". In that case, I suppose that both systems are essentially equal in difficulty.

Quote:

Quote:

Everyone (including AeonKit) knew from the beginning about the PA6T's situation, but bought into it nevertheless, with open eyes.

Quote:

Technically, you really only need one platform in order to write/test Radeon HD drivers.

Quote:

What's a CFE bug?

Quote:

Since the similarities between the Nemo and Cyrus are (AFAIK) virtually non-existent, it could very well be that the X5000 is a new experiment all over again...

> Freescale has [...] 20% higher clock

It's 2.0/1.8-1 = 11%.

> 30% cheaper

It's about 15%.

> Nemo is more expandable board

Yes, more RAM slots, SATA/PATA ports and USB ports.

> What's a CFE bug?

http://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?forum=3&topic_id=11372&start=211

Update:

> Leaman Computing Ltd. ("AmigaKit") is not A-Eon Technology Ltd.

"In order to bundle forces, A-EON Technology considers acquiring AmigaKit."
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=http://www.amiga-news.de/de/news/AN-2017-01-00060-DE.html

Update:

> Trevor has said in public (e.g. AmiWest 2012) that he indeed intends to recoup NRE costs
> with follow-up systems to the X1000.

Confirmation:

"He is aware that the price is high - but this is not due to the fact that A-EON Technology earns so much money with it, but by the fact that the production and development costs for hardware with low circulation are high."
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=http://www.amiga-news.de/de/news/AN-2017-01-00060-DE.html

> Can the X5000 (single core) decode and display 1080p x.264 streams in CPU/SW?

"The second case is FullHD movies. Practically it's impossible to play them without loss of FPS. [...] it's a little bit funny that we can't play FullHD videos."
http://www.amigapodcast.com/2017/04/amigaone-x5000-first-impression.html

Quote:

That may be an issue limited to OS4.
Who knows?

We will have to see when they get around to releasing MorphOS for the X5000.

Edit - Actually, after thinking about it, this will be problematic.
We simply shouldn't be decoding these streams with only the cpu.

[ Edited by Jim 24.04.2017 - 04:06 ]

Quote:

Only to a certain degree. The CPU lacks the grunt power, there is no way around that. The X1000 moved in 2005 G4 Powerbook realms concerning performance, and the G4 even won several benchmarks, that's well established. And the X5000 turned out to be a sideway move from the X1000 rather than a forward move.

So the above comment makes sense and is perfectly understandable.

Quote:

That's a different question altogether. The issue here wasn't how movie streams are potentially decoded the best way, but whether the CPU is powerful enough to do it.

This reminds me of the late Commodore days and thereafter, where the rest of the world (who already moved to powerful HW) began using mp3's and stuff. The Amiga was hopelessly behind. It lacked grunt power. But some enthusiasts persisted: "Untrue! The Amiga can of course also play mp3's! All you need is a HW decoder!"

Maybe *this* is the true "Amiga Curse"? The constant lack of powerful HW?

> That may be an issue limited to OS4. Who knows? We will have
> to see when they get around to releasing MorphOS for the X5000.

Or pampers, who we know is very willing to do whatever tests we demand of him on his MorphOS-driven X5000, could report here :-)

OK...I PM'd Wiktor.
Wish I had retained a direct email address, but its been a couple of years since I shipped him anything, and I no longer have access to the account I was using back then.

The P5020 ought to be right at the borderline for this kind of application.

I'd hate to find out that the X5000 can't do something a G5 can.

Although, it does sound like a potential application for ASMP, IF we have to keep discussing cpu driven decoding (which IS damned primitive).

[ Edited by Jim 24.04.2017 - 16:40 ]

> Wish I had retained a direct email address

http://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=11881&forum=3&start=4 :-)

@Andreas

Thanks, email inquiry sent.
And I saved the email address.
I lost quite a few of those when I suddenly lost access to my Comcast e-mail account.

Quote:

What do you mean "find out"?!? This has been a known fact for how long now, a year? Two? Since its specs were first announced?

The X1000, X5000 and year 2005 Powerbook G4's are all in the same performance realm, roughly speaking. And that means about 720p x.264 streams (depending on clip/encoding). Back at the time, many were surprised by the poor performance of the PA6T compared to G4. In several benchmarks, the G4 won, despite the clock difference. But at least the PA6T had Altivec, like the G4. The only reason to why the X5000 cope with the other two, despite not having Altivec (which really helps applications like these) is probably because the higher clock frequency compensates the lack of it. But still, it's only 2GHz. The G5 however goes to 2.7GHz *and* it has Altivec. You see? On G5's, 1080p x.264 streams play at 2.3GHz I think I recall. At 2.5GHz for sure.

How is it possible that soeone like you, who posts so much about the splendidness of the X5000 all the time everywhere you go, didn't know about the X5000/G5 situation? It's not exactly news, you know? Do you ever listen to what others say?

Quote:

Sure, you could send the undecoded binary stream to a GPU and let it decode and show the film, or maybe to an Apple TV via AirPlay and hav it do exactly the same thing. Then you could say "Look, my X5000 can play 1080p streams." But the discussion here was about CPU performance, and whether the CPU was up for a task like this, or not. It turned out it wasn't. But G5's are!

>> it does sound like a potential application for ASMP, IF we have to
>> keep discussing cpu driven decoding (which IS damned primitive).

> the discussion here was about CPU performance, and whether the CPU
> was up for a task like this, or not.

I guess Jim's mention of ASMP refers to involving the 2nd CPU core.

Quote:

Thanks Andreas, at least you got that idea.
As to the P5020 being SO much worse than the G4, I really don't think that is the case, or I wouldn't be planning on buying one.
It has a clock speed advantage, and from the dmips figures posted should perform fairly well.
As to AltiVec, that's only a small group of routines, and the cpu still has a standard fpu.
Its definitely a better performer than the PA6T, and with the P5040's four cores it has the potential (via SMP or ASMP) of outperforming a G4 laptop by about 300%.

Further, the X5000 supports MODERN gpus. The best that will ever plug into an AGP G5 is a Radeon 3850 or 4650/70 (IF Bigfoot continues to support AGP variants of PCIe cards).

I'd like to see us one day have support for AMD GCN gpus.

And we need PCIe if we are going to support USB3 eventually, as PCI doesn't have the needed bandwidth.

Now, IF we could get support for the later PCIe G5s (like the Quad 2.5 GHz)...
Eh, I keep one around, just in case, but I'm not placing bets on that.

But we WILL have support for the X5000, and that DOES have advantages over our current hardware.

And, btw, I don't like the idea of wasting a huge part of my cpu power on video decoding when it could be done in alternative ways (even with a G5).
We ought to be able to display these streams on G4s.
Not being able to do so on processors that run as fast as 1.67 GHz doesn't make sense when, if these tasks were offloaded, the cpu would still have plenty of power to spare.

>> X5000 and year 2005 Powerbook G4's are all in the same performance realm

> As to the P5020 being SO much worse than the G4, I really don't think that is the case

I don't think "same performance realm" means "much worse".

> It has a clock speed advantage

Yes, that's what takemehomegrandma says makes up for its lack of AltiVec.

> AltiVec [is] only a small group of routines

Yes, but definitely of significant advantage for tasks like video decoding.

> I don't like the idea of wasting a huge part of my cpu power on video decoding

I'd love to waste the power of my 2nd CPU on video decoding. Currently, I'm wasting it on doing nothing at all ;-)

>I'd love to waste the power of my 2nd CPU on video decoding. Currently, I'm wasting it on doing nothing at all

That's not what I meant and you know it.

But we do have many systems now with an extra cpu to spare (even my G4 system has one completely unused), so why not?
If we are not implementing SMP, they are just sitting there.

Oh, another advantage of the P50X0 cpu?
DDR3 and much higher memory bandwidth, that will add to the performance advantage over G4s and help close the gap with G5s (the best G5s only offer DDR2).

And its a pity we may never see a PPC implementation designed for us with a cpu that supports DDR4.